Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education

Vol. 34, No. 3, November 2006, pp. 271273

EDITORIAL

Teacher Education: Politics and

practice

Arguably there have never before been such blistering media commentaries and highly
politicized battles about teacher education as those that have dominated the public
discourse and fueled legislative reform during the past five to seven years. (CochraneSmith, 2005, p. 179)

As this editorial is going to press, newspapers report (see The Australian, 19 July; The
Age, 20 July; Sydney Morning Herald, 20 July) that the current Australian Minister for
Education, Julie Bishop, is raising concerns about the quality of teaching and the
standard of education in this country. This time the concern focuses on the number
of science and technology graduates that universities are producing, and it is
suggested that this problem stems, in part, from primary teachers failing to inspire
their students interests in these areas. Previously the Ministers message was that
schools in all States and Territories should put a structured narrative back into the
teaching of Australian history (Bishop, 2006). This call has been interpreted as a
return to teaching the events and dates of history rather than an interpretation of the
impact of these occurrences. As the epigraph suggests these concerns about
educational quality are not peculiar to Australia, but are shared across many
countries.
Twelve months ago we solicited submissions from notable Australian teacher
educators to address the the politics of teacher education. This themed issue was
conceived as a response to the growing number of reviews into teacher education
and to controversial claims about teachers and their preparation. Our aim was to
provide a forum for discussion and informed comment to facilitate a more critical
discussion of these emerging concerns.
Concerns about teacher education internationally are symptoms of the politicisation of education at all levels of its expression and articulation. The contested space
of teacher education is now more than ever under threat. This threat also extends to
the culture of educational research.
The most recent inquiry into Australian teacher education provoked controversy
and concern regarding teacher preparation programs and the quality of graduates
emerging from these programs. It seems opportune to analyse critically the status of
teacher education in Australia as it faces myriad challenges and the concerted
ISSN 1359-866X (print)/ISSN 1469-2945 (online)/06/030271-3
2006 Australian Teacher Education Association
DOI: 10.1080/13598660600927034

272

Editorial

attention of governments and politicians. In a context where teacher professionalism

and expertise is under question, there is a need for teacher educators to fight back.
There is now more than ever a need to question emergent hegemonies and to
deconstruct reviews of teacher education and education in general. It was with this
agenda in mind that this themed issue includes three solicited papers and
serendipitously, two papers that address matters consistent with the special issue
theme.
For a special issue dealing with the politics and practice of teacher education,
Richard Bates Presidential Address is an appropriate prolegomenon. It summarises
many of the current struggles besetting teacher education, and provides a stark
reminder of the way their millennial trajectories have abandoned the egalitarian
principles that underwrote Australian education, especially its public varieties, from
the 1890s through to the 1990s. Their replacement by the doctrine of the market
and an anachronistic cultural fundamentalism has seen educational inclusion and
diversity erased from social policies. Bates address is a clarion call for their reincorporation and for the recognition that education, as with the public sphere in
general, should be quarantined from the market. Along with a renewed commitment
to social justice comes the recognition that we live in a new world, one that is global,
and in which the sources of diversity are increasingly complex.
Terry Lovat and Julie McLeods paper complements Bates. It draws attention to
the paradoxes inherent in teacher education. It notes how traditionally the teacher
has been seen as a figure attracting the highest esteem, yet this esteem has rarely, if
ever, been reflected in the organisation of teacher education in the university, where
it has been treated in a miserly, if not derisory fashion. Lovat and McLeod suggest
reports and inquiries into the direction of teacher education have maintained that
such treatment is short sighted and counterproductive. Classroom teaching, they
argue, is a highly developed art and science and is in the same league as medicine
and law, yet the training regime associated with it brooks no comparison with that of
medicine or law. A programme of education at The University of Newcastle has
been introduced that attempts to give young teachers the type of preparation they
need to be fully professionalised. John Smyths paper articulates the concerns
about political interference, neo-liberal ideology and tabloid style commentary of
education. Smyth provides a detailed analysis of the ways that the above elements
combine to undermine teachers and public education. Ultimately Smyth offers a
strong challenge to the emerging hegemonies. Joce Nutall, Jane Mitchell and Terri
Seddons paper considers the research into teacher education and teaching. Their
study involved surveying refereed, published articles that conformed to an accepted
criterion for good research. On the whole they found these studies were typically
small-scale, one-off and localised. The authors note that traditionally academics in
Faculties of Education have backgrounds in teaching and that this has strongly
influenced the style of research conducted. The paper concludes with suggestions for
reconceptualising this research.
Lew Zipin and Marie Brennan present a critical and sometimes provocative
analysis of the literacy standards of pre-service teacher education students. In

Editorial

273

presenting their analysis, based largely on their experiential knowledge, Zipin and
Brennan not only point to cultural and critical literacy needs among students, they
also offer a socially just approach to addressing these needs in pre service teacher
education programs. This is a challenging and carefully theorised paper that does
indeed pose ethical dilemmas for teacher educators. Ya-Chen Sus paper
demonstrates that the style of political intervention that has occurred in
contemporary Australian education is not peculiar to Australia. Indeed, in Taiwan
the governments stranglehold on the educational system, particularly through
school textbooks, has been constant its history and its shifts in political ideology over
such matters as its relationship to mainland China, to its indigenous population and
so on. Sus paper explores the role that education plays in nation building, which was
Bates theme, but possibly negative nation-building. Textbooks in the Taiwan
setting masqueraded as propagandaas vehicles to promote dominant ideology.
David Saltmarsh (Macquarie University, Australia),
Anne McMaugh (Macquarie University, Australia),
Colin Symes (Macquarie University, Australia) and
Jennifer Sumsion (Charles Sturt University, Australia).

References
Bishop, J. (2006). Minster calls history summit. Retrieved July 20, 2006, from www.dest.gov.au/
Ministers/Media/Bishop/2006/07/B001180706.asp.
Cochrane-Smith, M. (2005). Introduction to the issue: The politics of teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education, 56(3), 179180.
Lane, B. (2006, July 19). All pain, little gain in maths reduction. The Australian, p. 25.
Neglect teaching, suffer the consequences. (2006, July 20). The Age, p. 16.
The science deficit. (2006, July 20). Sydney Morning Herald, p. 12.